Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1887-05-07

ana rules may ne emlnenlly SAFE IOr our
guidance in most matters, yet such unques-
tioning conformity is not progressive, and
this is progressive age.
Mr.. Proctor in his book, treats this ques-
ton (ofthe Queen play at some length,
and gives the following demonstration in
support of the rule:
WHEN BY PLAYING QUEEN
Third hand holds Ace
and King................... You throw her away.
Fourth hand holds Ace
and King....-............... You gain trick.
Third hand holds Ace,
18th holds King or not. You throw her away.
Third hand holds King
4th holds Ace.-......... You lose trick
Third hand holds King
4th holds not Ace.-....... You throw her away.
Third hand weak, 4th
holds King .......-.......-. You probably gain a
trick.
Third hand weak, 4th
holds Ace................... You gain trick.
These results are accepted, doubtless, by
a large majority of Mr.. Proctor's readers
without investigation, but they are not all
true, nevertheless, for in TWO cases first
and fifth) your Queen is worthless whether
played first or second round. To illustrate
more clearly the following correct exhibit
is given
WHEN By PLAYING QUEEN
Third hand holds Ace
and King ................. Your Queen is worth
less anyway.
Fourth hand holds Ace
and King. You gain q trick
Third hand holds Ace
4th holds King............. You probably lose a
trick.
Third hand holds King,
4th holds Aee............ You lose trick
Third hand holds King,
18th holds not Ace. Your Queen is worth
less anyway.
Third hand weak, 4th
holds King................ You probably gain
trick.
Third hand weak 4th
holds Ace.................... You gain q trick.
Thus it will be seen that the Queen.
when played first round, wins three times
in seven and loses twice, it being worthless
twice, whether played first or second round;
but the very important fact must not be
lost sight of that in original leads your
opponent leads from strength, and, in
majority of cases, holds either the Ace or
King, over your Queen, you most always
have the consolation of knowing that you
could not have made her win had you
held her back. Therefore, l hold that no
fixed rule for the play of Queen second
hand, when held with only one small card,
can be followed without deviation The
good players will take into consideration
whether or not the lead of his opponent is
an original or forced one and play accord
ingly. OF course when Queen and ten are
held the Queen should be played first
There is also another contingency having
very important bearing on the play of
Queen secondhand, namely: When you
know that by taking the trick you will be
placed at disadvantage, be forced to lead
up to strength or lead a suit probably your
opponents. Then, unquestionably, your
only proper play is the small card
Mr.. Proctor says, in his book, "Given,
for instance, an original lead of small
card tplain suit second player with Queen
and a small one land no special reason for
rlsklng something to get Lead, how often
do we see the Queen played. though it is
known that. in the greater number of cases,
the card is thus thrown away. OF course
the play often steals trick. Perhaps in
two cases out of five it may do So but it is
bad, because in a greater number of cases
1t fails; and in every case it suggests for
awhile to partner that you held either
Queen alone, or King, Queen and small
one" Now, l believe l have shown that
the writer of the above is greatly in error
in making the above assertion, and that
the play of Queen first round will win
oftener than if held back So, if there is
any reason why Queen should not be
played first round, it must be that ad-
vanced by Cavendish, viz: That it I'M
necessarily exposes your weakness and
enables the leader to finesse when the suit
is returned" But my experience has been
that the opportunities thus afforded the
leader to finesse are not so very fire.
quent, and this disadvantage is more
than made up in tricks gained
by adopting the play of Queen first
round. Mr.. Proctor admits that there is
one case in which the play of Queen works
to the players advantage, that it is when
his partner holds the King; his weakness
is then only disclosed to partner. But sup
pose his partner hold Ace and one or more
small ones, or Ace, King and another, is
secondhand giving any information to his
opponents by playing Queen first round?
If the play of Queen be recognized by play
ers generally as admissible, in certain
cases here enumerated, then the argument
that it Inisleads your partner loses its
weight. Authorities Proctor included)
recognize the play of Queen as allowable
and desirable when the player has reason
to want the lead. This may occur not ill.,
frequently. Is he then not misleading
partner and enlightening opponents? This
is the argument used against the more gen
eral adoption of the play. Mr.. Proctor
himself admits that " it is not easy to sys-
tematize the play second hand, or for the
Interpretation of the play" If so, then
why should this rule of the play of second
hand with Queen and one small one be
made so arbitrary?
Fun on the Farm.
Il z